Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: the mandatory two-call confirmation flow, the needs_confirm response, the requirement to show the summary word for word, and the cap constraint. This is exactly the kind of money-risk detail an agent needs for a destructive, non-idempotent operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The money warning and two-call rule are stated first, followed by the human-confirmation procedure and caps constraint.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema, rich annotations, and full parameter documentation, the description covers the essential human-in-the-loop and cap requirements. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are described there, including the confirm code's 10-minute validity. The description reinforces the confirm flow but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('Turn a campaign on') and immediately states the real-world consequence ('real ad money starts'). This clearly differentiates it from pause_ad_campaign and budget-setting siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a clear operating procedure: always two calls, first without confirm, then with the confirm code only after the human says yes. It does not explicitly compare against sibling alternatives like pause_ad_campaign, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.